I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...
I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....
- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)
I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"
One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...
I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.
Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:
1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?
WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Moderator: Moderators
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3286
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1554 times
- Been thanked: 1052 times
WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #1In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #101First of all, anyone that has studied this subject (Resurrection) in the least bit, would know that naysayers have historically accused the disciples of stealing the body and thus lying about the Resurrection...and my point is, they (disciples) believed that they actually saw the risen Jesus and the stealing the body/lying hypothesis is not valid.
Now, I just placed things back in its proper perspective...so next time, leave it there.
I never said nor implied that YOU claimed anyone lied. Don't know where you got that from unless there is some serious reading comprehension issues going on here.
Negative. The consensus is that both Paul and Peter lived up to the mid to late 60's AD. If that is the case, then it is highly unlikely that any telephone game mishaps could have crept in there, considering you have the originators of the story still around and about to quell any nonsense that would have manifested in their absence.
According to the early Church, Matthew and John's gospels comes from the apostles themselves (admittedly the question is which John wrote that Gospel).
And Mark was a friend of Peter, and Luke was a friend of Paul.
So, as I said, the Gospels originated from either the apostles, or FRIENDS of the apostles.
We don't "know" who wrote anything in antiquity. All we can do is go where the evidence takes us, and we (believers) are of the opinion that the evidence points us to where we currently stand.
Others may disagree...well, let them disagree.
I would say any apostle who lived in the 60's AD would have probably been between the ages of 55-65.
No originals of any ancient works of literature. But we do have with the Bible is the most copied book of all antiquity, which means that with so many copies, followed by careful paleography, we can date all of the copies from the earliest to the latest...and the premise is; the closer you are (in dating) to the earliest copies, the closer you are to the source, and the more validity you will have.
And this is exactly the case with Mark 16:9-20, to whereas this passage is NOT in the earlier copies we have of Mark, which means it was added at a later time.
Paleographing at it finest.
We've already identified this. No need to beat on a dead horse.
Again, as long as the originators (the apostles and followers of Jesus) was alive during these following decades, it is very unlikely that any embellishment of the story/message would have taken place.
Paul stated that Jesus appeared to him also.
Paul was a first hand account. He stated that Jesus appeared to him, and he was a contemporary source to early Christianity and also the the apostles.
Not to mention Matthew and John, of whom we have evidence that their Gospels originated from them.
LOL laws of physics?? What are the laws of physics to one who created the universe? hahahaha
Those copies of the copies of the copies are good enough.
I disagree with your sentiments.
So let me ask you this...if each Gospel had a preface of authorship such as "I am Matthew, apostle of Jesus, and I am writing a Gospel", would you be any close to becoming a believer a Christ?
If the answer is no, then the authorship of the Gospels are irrelevant.
If the answer is yes, then I simply don't believe you.
I am under the impression that the aim is not to believe, the aim is to remain skeptical to justify ones disbelief.
And I have no problem admitting that...and my theism is not in jeopardy based on this acknowledgment...because guess what, God still exists, doesn't he? Regardless of what his dwelling place was.POI wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:07 pm
My point is that you do not need to know what that 'something is, but that he had to dwell in 'something'. Which you admit. This means 'something' else must of had to always exist, along side 'God'. This means 'something, besides 'God', had to always be as well. Hence, God did not create this 'something'. Or did He? If He did, this means, at some point, God dwelled in 'nothing'; which you already rejected.
However, what I do know is that the physical universe is finite...which opens up a can of worms for you and atheism/agnosticism.
Not me.
So basically, you are using "Science of the Gaps", and relying on faith in science for a future hope. Sounds very religiousy to me.POI wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:07 pm You continue to double down. But this does not address my observation anyways. Science has yet to offer up a 'god did it' conclusion for anything. Thus far, all discoveries made, have yet to demonstrate "God's" hand in anything. But let's continue to keep our fingers crossed I guess.
It isn't being lazy, I am just smart enough to realize that one cannot use science to explain the origins of nature.
You need an external explanation, something that transcends nature to explain the origin of nature.
And as I said before, where science stops, theology begins.
Yes.POI wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:07 pm
The Bible tells the reader that if you don't hit your child with a rod, you are a "bad" and "unloving" parent.
"Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him" Prov. 13:24
"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol" Prov. 23:13-14
"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him" Prov. 22:15
So, I still ask anew, since you appear to be tap dancing around the question:
Attempt number 4 --> If a Christians thinks it is always bad to strike their child with a rod, does this mean they are being persuaded by "evil"? A simple (yes or no) will suffice.
Please remember, we are trying to determine how one knows if the "Holy Spirit" speaks to them.
You are being disingenuous. I clearly (for the third time), stated that you are to EXAMINE all religions. You ignore that part to focus on the emotion part, because you want to stick to your "gotcha" effort so that you can, in a accusatory way, say any variation of "truth isn't determined by emotions", while ignoring the fact that the emotions comes after (or as) you carefully examine the religions.
It is selective responding, and disingenuous.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3286
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1554 times
- Been thanked: 1052 times
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #102Well, this is not my argument. So if you wish to keep this one there, and attack that straw-man, go for it.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmFirst of all, anyone that has studied this subject (Resurrection) in the least bit, would know that naysayers have historically accused the disciples of stealing the body and thus lying about the Resurrection...and my point is, they (disciples) believed that they actually saw the risen Jesus and the stealing the body/lying hypothesis is not valid.
Now, I just placed things back in its proper perspective...so next time, leave it there.
Otherwise, please engage what I say.
Quite a bit of 'faith' you have going on here... You must assume that Paul and Peter were the proverbial gatekeepers to all incorrect gossip. Takes quite a bit of 'faith' to assume they could oversee such a vast area? Because, you know, Christians also state the stories spread far a wide very quickly.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmNegative. The consensus is that both Paul and Peter lived up to the mid to late 60's AD. If that is the case, then it is highly unlikely that any telephone game mishaps could have crept in there, considering you have the originators of the story still around and about to quell any nonsense that would have manifested in their absence.
"According to the early church?" Is this where you want to go? Really? Is any church the be-all-end-all of truth? Heck, we have so many conflicting church doctrines, I'm not sure I can even count this high? So which church(es) are we talking about exactly? And why is this particular church or churches the purveyor of absolute truth?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmAccording to the early Church, Matthew and John's gospels comes from the apostles themselves (admittedly the question is which John wrote that Gospel).
And Mark was a friend of Peter, and Luke was a friend of Paul.
So, as I said, the Gospels originated from either the apostles, or FRIENDS of the apostles.
You just pointed out yet another problem with the topic of antiquity. Thank you. If you do not know who wrote it, then you have absolutely no idea of what this person's motivation(s) may be?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmWe don't "know" who wrote anything in antiquity. All we can do is go where the evidence takes us, and we (believers) are of the opinion that the evidence points us to where we currently stand.
Others may disagree...well, let them disagree.
As stated prior, why would Jesus hing all His hopes on the massive faults of antiquity? And in regards to 'evidence', what 'evidence'? What counts as evidence, and why?
Is this based upon a hunch, or do we have 'evidence'?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmI would say any apostle who lived in the 60's AD would have probably been between the ages of 55-65.
What are the odds that the Gospel writers were not only direct eyewitnesses, but lived long enough to report these events themselves? And please, don't just assume, let's see some evidence? Oh wait, that's right.... We do not know who they were. So I guess you are hosed Your starting point is unknowable.
Problem, since we cannot know what was originally written, and by whom?
It does not matter if you have 1 copy, or 12,000,000 copies. The copy is a copy of a copy of a copy, with no knowledge of the original, and who wrote it? If I recopy the Rig Veda, 12,000,000 times perfectly, then what? Is the story any more real? Of course not. So please stop with this argument.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pm But we do have with the Bible is the most copied book of all antiquity
I mentioned Mark 16:9-20, simply to demonstrate that Mark has <at least> two authors. And do we not know who either of them are? No! Hence, what else was written, before this? The earliest full copies of the copies of the copies date to 100-200 years later. How would you know everything was perfectly preserved through all this time? Sprinkle is quite a bit of "faith", yet again.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pm And this is exactly the case with Mark 16:9-20, to whereas this passage is NOT in the earlier copies we have of Mark, which means it was added at a later time.
Paleographing at it finest.
Exactly how long was Jesus's resurrection tour? The Book of Acts states 40 days.
Nice example of question begging. A fallacious response warrants no response. Please try again.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmLOL laws of physics?? What are the laws of physics to one who created the universe? hahahaha
Well, until you state why, my statements stand:
- are the claims politically or socially unbiased? No, the Gospels were canonized by the church, who were already believers. Think Fox v. MSNBC for example
- were any of the authors eyewitnesses? No
- are all the sources consistent? No
If we had many independent 'verified' eyewitnesses to a resurrection claim, it would be harder to deny. However, I would say that we possibly have none. Hence, it's nothing more than a talking point to express that you don't believe me.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmSo let me ask you this...if each Gospel had a preface of authorship such as "I am Matthew, apostle of Jesus, and I am writing a Gospel", would you be any close to becoming a believer a Christ?
If the answer is no, then the authorship of the Gospels are irrelevant.
If the answer is yes, then I simply don't believe you.
I am under the impression that the aim is not to believe, the aim is to remain skeptical to justify ones disbelief.
Welcome to cognitive dissonance. You have just abandoned your own argument..We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmAnd I have no problem admitting that...POI wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:07 pm My point is that you do not need to know what that 'something is, but that he had to dwell in 'something'. Which you admit. This means 'something' else must of had to always exist, along side 'God'. This means 'something, besides 'God', had to always be as well. Hence, God did not create this 'something'. Or did He? If He did, this means, at some point, God dwelled in 'nothing'; which you already rejected.
You must now reconcile "something", besides 'God', has an infinite regress -- that is also not created. This 'something' does not necessitate 'god'.
And here were are, unknown to whether or not the 'universe' is eternal?
You have just validated what I stated to you many posts ago. Even if/when this argument is debunked, even to your own personal satisfaction, it won't matter.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pm and my theism is not in jeopardy based on this acknowledgment...because guess what, God still exists, doesn't he? Regardless of what his dwelling place was.
It sounds nothing of the sort. Religion requires worship and dogma. Science ascribes to neither. I appeal to stuff that is proven to work, and science has a pretty good track record. Unless you are under the impression that science will never solve another issue? Is science done?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmSo basically, you are using "Science of the Gaps", and relying on faith in science for a future hope. Sounds very religiousy to me.POI wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:07 pm You continue to double down. But this does not address my observation anyways. Science has yet to offer up a 'god did it' conclusion for anything. Thus far, all discoveries made, have yet to demonstrate "God's" hand in anything. But let's continue to keep our fingers crossed I guess.
Hmm, interesting... So we must refer to "Book"? This is the only alternative? How about, we don't know yet, and leave it at that, until we know?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmIt isn't being lazy, I am just smart enough to realize that one cannot use science to explain the origins of nature.
Aside from openly admitting an argument from ignorance, you have already reconciled that this hypothetical "transcendent" space needs no god.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pm You need an external explanation, something that transcends nature to explain the origin of nature.
Allow me to correct you here... The more science progresses, the smaller the gaps exist for the assertion of a god.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pm And as I said before, where science stops, theology begins.
Kool. Finally. Thank you. I know that was hard for you.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmYes.POI wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:07 pm
The Bible tells the reader that if you don't hit your child with a rod, you are a "bad" and "unloving" parent.
"Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him" Prov. 13:24
"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol" Prov. 23:13-14
"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him" Prov. 22:15
So, I still ask anew, since you appear to be tap dancing around the question:
Attempt number 4 --> If a Christians thinks it is always bad to strike their child with a rod, does this mean they are being persuaded by "evil"? A simple (yes or no) will suffice.
Please remember, we are trying to determine how one knows if the "Holy Spirit" speaks to them.
This means that all Christians who do not beat their kids with whips are unloving and evil. Good to know.
Care to answer additional yes/no questions now; which demonstrate whether or not you are hearing the from the Holy Spirit?
Your like or dislike of the evidence, for which you apprehend/infer, has absolutely no bearing on whether the evidence is true.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pmYou are being disingenuous. I clearly (for the third time), stated that you are to EXAMINE all religions. You ignore that part to focus on the emotion part, because you want to stick to your "gotcha" effort so that you can, in a accusatory way, say any variation of "truth isn't determined by emotions", while ignoring the fact that the emotions comes after (or as) you carefully examine the religions.
It is selective responding, and disingenuous.
Last edited by POI on Sun Jan 09, 2022 4:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- alexxcJRO
- Guru
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
- Location: Cluj, Romania
- Has thanked: 66 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
- Contact:
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #103Even the Catholics admit the anonymity: Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:10 pm Negative. The consensus is that both Paul and Peter lived up to the mid to late 60's AD. If that is the case, then it is highly unlikely that any telephone game mishaps could have crept in there, considering you have the originators of the story still around and about to quell any nonsense that would have manifested in their absence.
According to the early Church, Matthew and John's gospels comes from the apostles themselves (admittedly the question is which John wrote that Gospel).
And Mark was a friend of Peter, and Luke was a friend of Paul.
So, as I said, the Gospels originated from either the apostles, or FRIENDS of the apostles.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm
They agree that the traditional titles were a later addition.
“Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[30] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[3] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[4] and John AD 90–110.[5] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[6] A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[31]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
In all of these epistles except the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author and writer does claim to be Paul. The contested letters may have been written using Paul's name, as it was common to attribute at that point in history.[7]
Seven letters (with consensus dates)[8] considered genuine by most scholars:
• Galatians (c. 48 AD)
• First Thessalonians (c. 49–51)
• First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
• Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
• Romans (c. 55–57)
• Philippians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
• Philemon (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:[2]
• Second Thessalonians (c. 51–52)
• Colossians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
• Ephesians (c. 62)
The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by many scholars (traditional dating given):[2]
• First Timothy (c. 62–64)
• Second Timothy (c. 62–65)
• Titus (c. 66–67)
Finally, Epistle to the Hebrews, though anonymous and not really in the form of a letter, has long been included among Paul's collected letters. Although some churches ascribe Hebrews to Paul,[9] neither most of Christianity nor modern scholarship do so.[2][10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles
Scholars must have good reason to think that none were written by eyewitnesses.
If Peter was ~20-40 years old at the death of Jesus in 60-70 AD would have been ~80-110 years old.
If John was ~20-40 years old at the death of Jesus in 90-110 AD would have been ~110-150 years old.
If Mathew was ~20-40 years old at the death of Jesus in 85–90 AD would have been ~105-130 years old.
If Paul was ~5 at the death of Jesus in 85–90 AD he would have been already dead for 18-27 years.
The questions arises:
Q: How old was the Mark when he wrote the gospel? Is Mark the supposed writer of the gospel same as the Mark the supposed friend of Peter? Q: How credible are accounts who attest Mark was friend of Peter?
Q: How old was the Luke when he wrote the gospel? Is Luke the supposed writer of the gospel same as the Luke the supposed friend of Paul? Q: How credible are accounts who attest Luke was friend of Paul?
Q: How old was Mathew when he wrote the gospel? Is Mathew the apostle the same as the supposed Mathew who wrote the gospel?
Q: How old was John when he wrote the gospel? Is John the apostle the same as the supposed John who wrote the gospel?
Q: Is it likely that eyewitnesses to Jesus' life survived the 50s or even more then 80s considering the life span of people in that ancient time?
Q: What about the Non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels? What's up with them? Why their perspective is not included?
Non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels: Gospel According to the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Philip , Gospel of the Saviour,
Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Protoevangelium of James, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Barnabas.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #104[Replying to POI in post #1]
I'd like to add:
- Many are God believers, and may always be God believers, due to the fact that God and Heaven are proven scientifically by radio-astronomy given radiological interpretation.
- Many are God believers, and may always be God believers, due to conviction that believing in God represents what's true and meaningful, rather than to be wart-religious and "worshipping false idols" with tendency to evil.
We have earlier discussed the chance to be any different. While not believing in determinism, whatever flavor, I still think that the informed person is of the choice based on psychiatric condition, the brain chemistry.
I have also expressed my opinion that says that mentally healthy people are inclined to believe in God and Heaven and more, all while remaining steadily scientific.
1. Given the above reasons, my main reason has been my conviction that has strengthened a lot in the later years. Søren Kierkegaard has given me much strength in believing in God formerly.
2. There is a theoretical chance that (lengthy) torture and with it a special, devious programme can shake my faith, but I'm likely to die from it and recover by the Purgatory. Thus, psychological reason for quitting to believe in God?
3. I see Debating Christianity as a possibility to inform people to make better choices, the fight for the young. I'm also here for like-minded people, other Christians and other religious people. I also want to "live out" the discussion, the apologetics, so to invent something new, to see new development, to change the World for the better. As I've said, for us who are older, we are likely to stick with our psychiatric state and remain what we have been as we entered these forums. However, I see deterioration of the nervous system as this: Religious -> Agnostic -> Atheist/Non-believer. This is stated not to be rude in any way, but for saying what's true. Not to say that we all deteriorate, but to say we all should take care and watch out for one another.
God bless and peace to you!
I'd like to add:
- Many are God believers, and may always be God believers, due to the fact that God and Heaven are proven scientifically by radio-astronomy given radiological interpretation.
- Many are God believers, and may always be God believers, due to conviction that believing in God represents what's true and meaningful, rather than to be wart-religious and "worshipping false idols" with tendency to evil.
We have earlier discussed the chance to be any different. While not believing in determinism, whatever flavor, I still think that the informed person is of the choice based on psychiatric condition, the brain chemistry.
I have also expressed my opinion that says that mentally healthy people are inclined to believe in God and Heaven and more, all while remaining steadily scientific.
1. Given the above reasons, my main reason has been my conviction that has strengthened a lot in the later years. Søren Kierkegaard has given me much strength in believing in God formerly.
2. There is a theoretical chance that (lengthy) torture and with it a special, devious programme can shake my faith, but I'm likely to die from it and recover by the Purgatory. Thus, psychological reason for quitting to believe in God?
3. I see Debating Christianity as a possibility to inform people to make better choices, the fight for the young. I'm also here for like-minded people, other Christians and other religious people. I also want to "live out" the discussion, the apologetics, so to invent something new, to see new development, to change the World for the better. As I've said, for us who are older, we are likely to stick with our psychiatric state and remain what we have been as we entered these forums. However, I see deterioration of the nervous system as this: Religious -> Agnostic -> Atheist/Non-believer. This is stated not to be rude in any way, but for saying what's true. Not to say that we all deteriorate, but to say we all should take care and watch out for one another.
God bless and peace to you!
I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2362
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
- Location: real world
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 49 times
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #105[Replying to POI in post #98]
As far as what you refer to as "indoctrination", I can assure you that I have shed myself of a tremendous amount of what I was taught about Christianity. It seems sort of strange, one who claims to have been indoctrinated, and goes on to claim, they wanted Christianity to be true, somehow is able to shed themselves of this indoctrination, who now seems to want to pin indoctrination, as a cause of belief for those who have come to a different conclusion? I guess you are the lucky one, huh? I guess you were intelligent enough to see through your indoctrination, while I am still stuck in mine?
I said,
However, allow me to give you one reason, and I am not attempting to be a "smart aleck" here. One of the reasons is, the more time I spend on this site, conversing with those who seem to be under the impression that it is as simple as paring your reason down to one main reason, who go on to demonstrate they really have no reason for the doubt they have.
NO! If you are simply sharing what you believe to be true, without making any sort of "assertions" which cannot be demonstrated to be true, then you own no burden. The problem comes in when there are those such as Dawkins, who purposely avoid any sort of "assertions", in an attempt to force the burden upon the Christian. This is clearly a tactical argument, which shows no concern for the actual truth. The problem with this argument is, the Christian who is simply sharing what they believe to be true, who does not make any sort of "assertions" which they cannot demonstrate to be true, would not own any sort of burden. The point is, this tactic does not in any way shift the burden to the Christian. The Christian, like the atheist, only owns the burden when they make certain claims.Ah, your beef is you think we doubters of such assertions are avoiding a 'necessitated' burden.
If I come across as "hostile" I assure you this is not my intent. Let's just say this is something I struggle with. The reason why I struggle with this is because I grew in an environment where feelings were not taken into consideration. My wife scolds me about this all the time. What she tells me many times is, "it is not what you say, it is the way in which you say it". I will attempt to do better, but I cannot promise. It is just the way I am. I do not mean anything by it.This explains the hostility to come, from reading your continued response below
I believe if you were to go back to post 77, I believe I addressed all the bullet points besides the "type 1 errors" and I skipped that one because I had no idea what it was. The thing is, I have been on this site for a good number of years, and it was brought to my attention just the other day that I have posted some 2146 post here in my time. I can assure you in that time, I have explained much of what I believe, and why I believe as I do, and you are free to examine all you would like. The thing is, you listed your bullet points, I have addressed them, where do we go from here?Venturing back to your first voluntary response, you cited the same bullet points I listed in the OP. Care to explore the very first one? I.E. "we all invoke type 1 errors"? If not, care to start with another?
I think I explain to you that it would have to do with my own abilities. In other words, I may question my own thinking abilities, as I consider the FACT, there are many folks who are far more intelligent than myself, who have come to a different conclusion. This is exactly why I have been on this site so long, along with continuing to read from those opposed, Thus far, I am struggling to find a reason for doubt!I agree with what you said above.
What exactly causes your doubts? I would really like to know?
Oh really? So then, when I explain to you from the Bible, "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son", this was nothing new to you? If so, then why would you ask me to elaborate?Again, there is nothing new under the sun. Nothing you have told me is really anything new.
I really do not know how you have come to this conclusion? You yourself seem to admit you wanted to believe the Christian claims, but somehow came to a different conclusion. Whether you would like to believe it or not, I could not have cared less which side I ended up on, because I had a lot at stake. If I would have had some sort of bias, it would seem as if I would have landed right exactly with what I was taught as a child? In other words, why would I go to the extent of having to depart from being able to worship with my own family? Does that make sense to you? I mean, what is the difference? Hey, mom and dad, I am not a believer? Or, hey mom, and dad, I believe most of what you taught me was a bunch of garbage?You were raised in Christianity, and augmented this belief system accordingly, to follow your logic and reason;
As I have already explained, I do not need to know a thing about any other religion, to understand, and know there are very good reasons to believe the Christian claims. If there is any other religion, you would like to compare as far as the historical facts, and evidence is concerned, I would be more than happy to oblige.Is it possible to do this with another religion as well?
"Verify" is a mighty strong word. Let's just say, like Dawkins I have a great amount of certainty.Does there exist an external and objective way to verify truth in the claims for which you believe?
Of course it is possible. We all can be guilty of "confirmation bias" even those who claim not to know. There are times when I have to wonder whether a person I am dealing with is operating upon "confirmation bias". Can you imagine why I never bring this into the conversation? Well, that would be exactly because I understand "confirmation bias", and it could be myself who is the guilty party. Therefore, when another continues to bring this into the conversation, it causes me to wonder if they truly understand "confirmation bias"?Great. So is it then possible such believed claims are substantiated/validate by way of conformation bias, which stems from the aforementioned topic of indoctrination?
As far as what you refer to as "indoctrination", I can assure you that I have shed myself of a tremendous amount of what I was taught about Christianity. It seems sort of strange, one who claims to have been indoctrinated, and goes on to claim, they wanted Christianity to be true, somehow is able to shed themselves of this indoctrination, who now seems to want to pin indoctrination, as a cause of belief for those who have come to a different conclusion? I guess you are the lucky one, huh? I guess you were intelligent enough to see through your indoctrination, while I am still stuck in mine?
Well my friend, as I have already stated, a number of these folks have gone on to write book volumes describing the events which caused their conversion. Some of these folks were not only opposed to Christianity at the time, they were hostile to it, and you are more than free to read what they have to say. I want to be perfectly clear in saying that I do not believe their stories demonstrate anything, any more than the many, many former Christians stories here on this site demonstrates anything.Well, the take away could be... What were these topics/categories which turned such a person from one conclusion to another?
As I have already said, I have addressed all but one of them in post 77. The problem with them is, none of them would have a thing in the world to do with the truth of the matter. As an example, I agree, and am thoroughly convinced that many Christians (maybe even most) are stuck in their indoctrination, and do not really know what they believe, or why they believe it. However, I can assure you, this is not in any way whatsoever evidence against the Christian claims. This is why I say, if it is these sort of things which cause your doubt in Christianity, then you really have no reason for your doubt.I have already mentioned a few, in the OP; for which you have agreed... Care to explore one of them -(if not already started above in a prior request)?
Better said, it ended with the Apostles.So your take-away here, is that God used to speak to some, but that ended with Jesus.
Correct! The problem is, what WLC claims to be his "main reason" makes no sense to me. In other words, if all the evidence for the Christian claims were debunked, I cannot imagine one clinging to some sort of "inner witness"? Therefore, I cannot "pare down" to a main reason, as you seem to be insisting that I do.My point is that he was able to pare down to his main reason.
I said,
Your reply,realworldjack wrote:I cannot say "I know the content of the Bible is true", but I can say, I am convinced it is true, with great certainty.
GOOD GRIEF! I am going to continue to say this every time you ask. There are folks who have authored book volumes describing the reasons they believe, and you seem to want me to give you some sort of main reason? You claim that if you were ask to do the same thing as to why you have doubts, you could accomplish this task. Well, I am going to assume the bullet points in the OP is what you are referring to, and if I am correct, these bullet points demonstrate you really have no reason to doubt. Certainly, there is more to it than the bullet points, which is exactly my point! Therefore, if I were to begin to give you a reason, this would go on to lead to other reason, and on, and on it would go. It is just not that simple.Based upon?
However, allow me to give you one reason, and I am not attempting to be a "smart aleck" here. One of the reasons is, the more time I spend on this site, conversing with those who seem to be under the impression that it is as simple as paring your reason down to one main reason, who go on to demonstrate they really have no reason for the doubt they have.
I am going to assume the "book" you are referring to would be the Bible? If I am correct, this sort of demonstrates one who has a lack of knowledge of what the Bible actually is. Let us concentrate upon the NT. The NT is a collection of writings, the overwhelming majority of which can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers, with the author having no idea, or intention that his letter would be read by anyone else besides his original audience at the time, and they certainly could not have had any idea whatsoever about any sort of bible these letters would have been contained in. The point is, these folks were not writing in order for you, or I, nor the world to know these things, and they certainly were not writing in order to be contained in the Bible. Now, this does not cause the content to be "extraordinary", but I am not the one who is championing the idea that "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence".You missed the point. A Book is not extraordinary evidence, is it?
Oh, I begged to differ. However, to begin with, why don't you give me any sort of evidence that what we have contained in the NT would be, "legend, oral tradition"? As far as "eyewitnesses" go, I have already shared with you an author who claims to have been an "eyewitness". So, what evidence would we have which may suggest this would have been false information? Let us just start there, and I think we will begin to see just how "extraordinary" it would be for what you say to be true.Claiming it is legend, oral tradition, lacks eyewitnesses, etc, does not qualify as extraordinary.
Which again, goes to demonstrate a lack of knowledge.The Book is the claim.
The "book" you are referring to, contains multiple disconnected sources, who report on the same event. Unless of course, you would like to demonstrate how these authors would have been connected?The Book is also virtually the only evidence.
I believe I have selected all of the above? The ball is now in your court!If you wish to flesh out any of the topics I presented, (i.e.) how legend works, how oral tradition works, how the church canonized the Gospels, how we have no direct eyewitness accounts, etc, please select one.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #106Your quotation of yourself above is just simply inaccurate. Here, let me help you with tap of accuracy.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:59 pm
Your not correcting me if that what you taught.
“Indeterminism is the idea that events (or certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically.”
I said :” Quantum mechanics deals with indeterminate events meaning events could be either causal or non-causal.”
Q: So what is with that reply?
"Quantum mechanics deals with events, and either these events could be causal (determinate) or non-causal (indeterminate)."
There, much better.
BTW. I have no desire to read novel analogies. Keep it short & sweet.
alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:59 pm
Straw-man.
This: “The time of a radioactive decay is uncaused in the sense that, if it has not decayed at a time t, then it’s probability of decaying in the next small time increment, dt, is just some constant (the decay rate for that atom) times dt. It is independent of the time t so it can’t be modeled by any deterministic process, it is a stochastic process called a Poisson process.” is a quote of someone else. Not me.
Nonsense. Let me provide a quote...
"In the causal interpretation of quantum theory of David Bohm, it is in principle possible to predict the decay of a single isotope (single event). Radioactive decay is described deterministically in terms of well-defined particle trajectories."
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Radi ... eory/#more
As I stated, there are interpretations of QM which have deterministic causes....and neither interpretation offers any defeaters of the philosophical arguments against infinite regress and also against the idea that objects can pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing.
Then appealing to either one is a waste of time.
Coming from a person who offered radioactive decaying as evidence contrary to premise 1 of the KCA, without demonstrating whether such a hypothesis/interpretation is true.
First, you state that atom decay MAY have uncaused elements to it..well, if it may, then it also may NOT.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:59 pm I am not claiming anything I am just pointing to the unknown. Atom decay may have uncaused elements to it. Therefore unless the religious bring empirical evidence to show the determinism. Everything that begin to exist is caused cannot be said to be true.
Q: Do you understand? Or do you need me to explain again? )
Then you challenge the religious to bring empirical evidence to show the determinism, when you have NOT brought any empirical evidence to show the indeterminism.
As you stated, you are pointing to the unknown, so you just dont know.
Well, quit appealing to indeterminism if you don't know.
I do not appeal to either one, because for the umphteenth time, the philosophical arguments that I provide is independent of physics, cosmology, or what your favorite scientist has to say on the matter....and such arguments don't care about any past or future discoveries in science.
No, let me spell it out for you. I will say this to you ONE LAST TIME...alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:59 pm KALAM has the premise: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence”.
Quantum mechanics deals with indeterminate events meaning events could be either causal or non-causal. Virtual particles and radioactive decay may be uncaused. This is problematic for the premise of the KALAM.
Q: How is that so hard to understand? Do you want me to spell it for you?
There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics...some of those interpretations are indeterministic, and some are deterministic. No one knows which interpretation is correct, and there is this free-for-all thing going on where everyone has an opinion, but no one can definitely prove it either way.
So according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, virtual particles and radioactive decay DOES have causes.
Do you not understand that? Either way, I've stated this multiple times and you don't seem to get it...and I won't be repeating myself again, with all due respect.
The same way you can check to see if you don't really know everything, but on the flip side. Think of a question that you don't know the answer to...and once it dawns on you that you don't really know the answer, then guess what, you've checked.
Never once in God's eternal life did he ever answer "I don't know" to a question, and he has had an eternity to sit back and think of a question that he doesn't know the answer to...and he has never succeeded.
Omniscience is irrelevant to the KCA.
The Uncertainty principle (which deals with momentum and position of a particle) has nothing to do with whether or not things can pop into existence, uncaused, out of the state of nothingness.
Then don't make postulations if you are either unable or unwilling to provide evidence/proof for what you posit.
If your claim is..
"You only provided two options, when there could be more than just those two".
And I challenge you to enlighten me of these "more" options that you speak of...
And your response is "I don't need to provide anything."...
Then my response is "Well, you should have kept this "more" business to yourself."
They kept being wrong about which God. They didn't keep being wrong about a God.
Atheists are wrong in both regards.
That is where you are wrong. The KCA states that nothing happens without a precedent cause, whether efficient or material, the causal principle is not negated.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (nothing pops in to being, uncaused, out of nothing).
2. The universe began to exist (the universe did not pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing).
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (the universe owes its existence to something outside of itself).
The meaning of the word cause is consistent, and the only thing flawed here is your understanding of the argument.
The universe = STEM (SPACE, TIME, ENERGY, MATTER).alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:59 pm
I must have miss it.
Tell me again.
Proponents like W.L.Craig refer to the universe as all that resulted from the Big Bang conform the Big Bang theory because it’s supposes a beginning of the universe and has support from scientists and supports the Bible hypothesis.
Craig:” For the universe comprises all contiguous spacetime reality”.
So, when I count to 10, I am not really counting to 10? This is just an illusion? If I stab someone 10 times...I can say to the judge and jury "I did not stab that person 10 times, it is just an illusion".alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:59 pm Temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time is just an illusion.
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once. Imagine time like a space dimension.
On B theory, all of the moments of time exist tenselessly at once, so the absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise.
Also the phrase “begins to exist” begs the question on B-theory about what it means for something to begin if the claim is that beginnings only happen on an A-theory.
Craig for example insists upon the A-theory as a necessary part of the kalam cosmological argument.
According to Craig KALAM “presupposes from start to finish an A-theory of time.”
On the B-theory time as I see it, could be infinite without having problems because of infinite regress, because it does not become infinite by successive addition. And as long as we do not “move through” time, there is no temporal regress going back in time. The various moments of time stand in tenseless relations to all the other moments.
Avicenna for example believed actual infinites are possible in certain conditions.
Use ignorance? I asked a question...and I will ask again; can science give you infinite regress?
Before creation, there were no prior events and God had an eternal, necessary will to create. After creation, time is initiated, and God now operates within time and chooses actions based on prior events, such as God punishing a person now (present event) for something the person did yesterday (prior event).
I don't get how the question is relevant to the discussion.
I still don't understand. Can you provide a short/sweet analogy to drive home whatever point you are attempting to make.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:59 pm Partially, subjectively random means hard to predict but deterministic.
Completely, objectively random are impossible to predict therefore non-deterministic.
A completely random or objectively random event is uncaused.
Free will in order to exist needs to be completely, objectively random.
Therefore first premise bogus.
Q:It’s clear now?
If there is no first cause, then the past is eternal and there is an infinite chain of cause/effect relationships within time.
Impossible.
There is nothing that a thousand gods can do that one omnipotent God can't do.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:59 pm Occam razor does not get you out of the fallacy.
“The simplest explanation is usually the best one. “
Subjective qualitive ponderings cannot be said to be the truth or objective. Usually is the key word.
Its funny how believers in Christianity(triune god) argue for one being better then 3 or 4 or 5 or …
If one says simplicity is a maximally great making attribute then it follows because it is simpler to be a oneness of self, one rational faculty instead of a multi-personal self, multiple rational faculties; God would have to be one person, one rational faculty: Unitarian God.(God would also would not have to share the other maximally great properties).
On the other hand if one says that complexity is a great making attribute then it follows because it is more complex, greater to be a multi-personal self, multiple rational faculties instead of a oneness of self, God would have to be multi-person. But 4 is greater the 3, 5 greater then 6, 1000 greater then 999, ...; therefore God would have to be of infinite persons(Hive mind- Swarm Intelligence).
Q: Are you saying that one mind is better then hive-mind of three(Trinity)?
Sounds like deism to me. To postulate multiple non-physical causes acting as first movers, is to leave atheism and step into the world of supernaturlism.
Either way, atheism is defeated. I will take the W.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #107I already acknowledged that point.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:36 am
Even the Catholics admit the anonymity: Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm
They agree that the traditional titles were a later addition.
Next..
Depending on who you talk to. A case can be made that all Gospels (besides John) was written prior to 70AD.
We can all provide our little quotes from our sources...I can provide sources of whom agree with me..so posting these little quote excerpts won't get us anywhere.
As I stated, a case can be made for my side of things...and it was made, and I agree with it.
Again, as I told POI...my contention is that the Gospels all ORIGINATED from either apostles or friends of the apostles.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:36 am Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[6] A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[31]”
"Originated" does not necessarily mean "written". The stories originated (were told by) the traditional alleged authors, but it may have been put in print later by devout followers.
I will take them all as authentic authorships...however, all I really need is Galatians, First Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:36 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
In all of these epistles except the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author and writer does claim to be Paul. The contested letters may have been written using Paul's name, as it was common to attribute at that point in history.[7]
Seven letters (with consensus dates)[8] considered genuine by most scholars:
• Galatians (c. 48 AD)
• First Thessalonians (c. 49–51)
• First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
• Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
• Romans (c. 55–57)
• Philippians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
• Philemon (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:[2]
• Second Thessalonians (c. 51–52)
• Colossians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
• Ephesians (c. 62)
And even from your sources, I have them
Ehhh.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:36 am The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by many scholars (traditional dating given):[2]
• First Timothy (c. 62–64)
• Second Timothy (c. 62–65)
• Titus (c. 66–67)
Finally, Epistle to the Hebrews, though anonymous and not really in the form of a letter, has long been included among Paul's collected letters. Although some churches ascribe Hebrews to Paul,[9] neither most of Christianity nor modern scholarship do so.[2][10][/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles
I will stick to my 55-65 age range around the mid to late 60s AD.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:36 am Scholars must have good reason to think that none were written by eyewitnesses.
If Peter was ~20-40 years old at the death of Jesus in 60-70 AD would have been ~80-110 years old.
If John was ~20-40 years old at the death of Jesus in 90-110 AD would have been ~110-150 years old.
If Mathew was ~20-40 years old at the death of Jesus in 85–90 AD would have been ~105-130 years old.
If Paul was ~5 at the death of Jesus in 85–90 AD he would have been already dead for 18-27 years.
First off, how old Mark was irrelevant. He was old enough to be the source of the material, that is how old he was.
Second, considering the fact that tradition has Mark, a FRIEND of Peter as being the source of the written Gospel...that in itself gives credibility to the claim that Mark wrote it.
After all, instead of claiming that Peter wrote it..they basically said that Peter didn't write it, but his FRIEND wrote it.
Why not just say Peter wrote it? Peter's name would obviously carry more weight than Mark's. That kind of sincerity/honesty goes a long way with me.
How credible? Paul mentions Luke (and Mark) himself (Philemon 1:23-24)..
23 Epaphras, my hfellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.
And again, even according to your own sources, Philemon's authorship is considered authentic...so, kill that noise.
Again, it all comes from the early Church. We don't have a history of them quarreling about the Gospels authorship, because it was probably accepted as a known fact, regardless of what skeptics some 2,000 years later on debating forums (and elsewhere) have to say about the matter.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:36 am Q: How old was Mathew when he wrote the gospel? Is Mathew the apostle the same as the supposed Mathew who wrote the gospel?
Q: How old was John when he wrote the gospel? Is John the apostle the same as the supposed John who wrote the gospel?
Q: Is it likely that eyewitnesses to Jesus' life survived the 50s or even more then 80s considering the life span of people in that ancient time?
Because they were not considered inspired and were actually written centuries later and could not have possibly been derived from apostles or friends of the apostles.alexxcJRO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:36 am Q: What about the Non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels? What's up with them? Why their perspective is not included? Non-canonical (apocryphal) gospels: Gospel According to the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Philip , Gospel of the Saviour,
Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Protoevangelium of James, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Barnabas.
It was selective process and not every alleged "Gospel of" book would make the playoffs.
This is something that I expect people from your camp (skeptics) to appreciate...because, one of the primary objections of the Gospels validity is the fact that they were allegedly written decades/centuries after the fact (which is untrue, anyway).
But some those non-canonical books were actually written centuries later, and that is why they were rejected as part of the canon...so the fact that they were rejected for those same very reasons that most skeptics reject the actual canon, which is something I am sure you can appreciate.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #108Don't worry, your argument is currently being destroyed.
Reading comprehension. The whole lying bit was more of a preface to the case that I was building...it had nothing to do with whatever case you were making.
Hmm. Yet in Paul's epistles, he does exactly that. In his espistles he is quelling false teachings, false teachers, and setting the foundation for the Christian church as the religion continued to grow.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm Quite a bit of 'faith' you have going on here... You must assume that Paul and Peter were the proverbial gatekeepers to all incorrect gossip.
Takes quite a bit of 'faith' to assume they could oversee such a vast area? Because, you know, Christians also state the stories spread far a wide very quickly.
Not to mention the fact that historically speaking, Peter and Paul were regarded in high esteem as leaders in the early Christian movement.
So here is a clear example of a skeptic (you) who is being skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical, instead of seriously looking into these well-established historical facts as it pertains to what he is being skeptical about.
As I keep stressing, this isn't about any seriously truth-seeking considerations..but more so to flex any skeptical muscles that one thinks he/she has.
Yeah, really.
No, but then again neither are any of the sources from which you get your data from.
We are not talking about Church doctrine right now, are we? See, you are over the place. Your skepticism is so high, you can't even stay in a straight line, and it is a crying shame
And which problem is that?
Oh please..
Already addressed this.
The age of a person when they decide to write something is irrelevant. No relevance whatsoever, and this is more of what I would call filler skepticism, where, when you run out of things to be skeptical about, you appeal to filler nonsense to keep the skeptical party going.
Well, don't believe it then. Asking me the "odds" of a person living long enough to do something is just plain silly and I won't even consider it as a viable question that needs to be answered.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm What are the odds that the Gospel writers were not only direct eyewitnesses, but lived long enough to report these events themselves? And please, don't just assume, let's see some evidence? Oh wait, that's right.... We do not know who they were. So I guess you are hosed Your starting point is unknowable.
Next...
Which is something you can say about any ancient work of literature. So the entire field of historical inquiry is flushed down the toilet with one faulty, ridiculous premise.
And this is how I can tell that you are out of touch when it comes to history, and paleography. Because if you were informed, you would know that the more copies you have of a writing, the better.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm
It does not matter if you have 1 copy, or 12,000,000 copies. The copy is a copy of a copy of a copy, with no knowledge of the original, and who wrote it? If I recopy the Rig Veda, 12,000,000 times perfectly, then what? Is the story any more real? Of course not. So please stop with this argument.
Which is a known fact that no one is disputing.
LOL yeah, if the earliest full copies of the copies date to 100-200 years later, that would mean that the original(s) were written even earlier, which is prior to 100 AD.
So, what point are you trying to make again??
And how do you know that the Gospels and the Resurrection of Jesus is all bogus and none of it is true and that faith in Christ is meaningless and when you die, nothing happens.
Quite a bit of "faith", isn't it?
Then it looks as if your question is answered, doesn't it?
Ok, so let me address this non sequitur..POI wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm
Well, until you state why, my statements stand:
- are the claims politically or socially unbiased? No, the Gospels were canonized by the church, who were already believers. Think Fox v. MSNBC for example
- were any of the authors eyewitnesses? No
- are all the sources consistent? No
"The Gospels were canonized by the church, who were already believers...therefore, what the church said about the Gospels cannot be true"
That's what I got out of it.
Non sequitur.
"It would be harder to deny", which ultimately means "It would be harder to deny, but I would still deny".
That's what I got out of it.
First of all, I never said nor implied that God has an infinite regress...in fact, I've stated many times elsewhere that God himself is subjected to the problem of infinite regress, which is why no proponent of the KCA would ever make such a claim.
So basically, you are attacking straw man and you are clearly misinformed on the nitty gritty details of the KCA.
Faulty premises only leads to faulty conclusions.
You will have to get it debunked first, which you've yet to do, because you can't.
Theology has a pretty good track record, too. Theology explains the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and the origins of consciousness...3 things of which science is incapable of explaining.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm
It sounds nothing of the sort. Religion requires worship and dogma. Science ascribes to neither. I appeal to stuff that is proven to work, and science has a pretty good track record. Unless you are under the impression that science will never solve another issue? Is science done?
We? We who? Speak for yourself.
*Sighs* No, I didn't.
Your opinion is noted.
Sure. If it is line with the Bible, the answer will be yes. If not, then no. No shame in my game.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:36 pm
Kool. Finally. Thank you. I know that was hard for you.
This means that all Christians who do not beat their kids with whips are unloving and evil. Good to know.
Care to answer additional yes/no questions now; which demonstrate whether or not you are hearing the from the Holy Spirit?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #109Why is it a "problem" if someone does not make any positive assertions and hence is not required to accept any burden of proof? That does not force the burden of proof onto anyone else, Christian or otherwise. If Christians engage in proselytising or simply making positive claims about the existence of their God, then they automatically have an associated burden of proof. If they don't want it, there is an obvious solution which would not be a problem for anyone at all.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am If you are simply sharing what you believe to be true, without making any sort of "assertions" which cannot be demonstrated to be true, then you own no burden. The problem comes in when there are those such as Dawkins, who purposely avoid any sort of "assertions", in an attempt to force the burden upon the Christian.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?
Post #110brunumb, in the conservatory, with the lead pipe.brunumb wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:44 pmWhy is it a "problem" if someone does not make any positive assertions and hence is not required to accept any burden of proof? That does not force the burden of proof onto anyone else, Christian or otherwise. If Christians engage in proselytising or simply making positive claims about the existence of their God, then they automatically have an associated burden of proof. If they don't want it, there is an obvious solution which would not be a problem for anyone at all.Realworldjack wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:43 am If you are simply sharing what you believe to be true, without making any sort of "assertions" which cannot be demonstrated to be true, then you own no burden. The problem comes in when there are those such as Dawkins, who purposely avoid any sort of "assertions", in an attempt to force the burden upon the Christian.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin